Merchandise protection, cleanup and the dated record

Protection and cleanup described by Walmart

The August 6 response relays contractor procedures: daily roof-area texts to store management, an inside spotter, zoning when necessary, covering products or areas deemed necessary, warning signs, post-tear-off cleanup, and additional cleaning during the day. Covering is described selectively. The response also describes returning the affected area to a safe and clean condition. The September 22 response says management is unaware of roof debris present on merchandise.

Dated merchandise and control observations

July 12 uncovered apparel and July 18 packaging particles test the effectiveness of the described protection and cleaning. July 18 and July 28 plastic sheeting corroborate that some controls were deployed. August 23 Pets and August 28 Electronics particles provide later condition evidence following the August 6 completion response. Archive-dated images retain their weaker date basis where an original capture time has not been checked.

Independent findings and the evidence sent to OSHA

DSHS’s July 28 findings identify ceiling insulation and dirt on specified displays and packaged goods. Its same report found no debris on the listed exposed food, infant formula/baby food, tortillas, packaged meats or frozen-food items at its inspection. Both parts remain visible.

Kyle’s September 15 email and binder excerpt reports repeated falling particles, minimal containment and settled material remaining on shelves/products. It is reproduced in the actual FOIA production. OSHA’s September 15 letter places the merchandise-debris allegation before Walmart; Walmart’s September 22 response repeats it. This establishes notice of the allegation without establishing each manager’s firsthand knowledge.

September 12 dated observations and the September 23 binder transmittal separately address continuing wet paths, case leaks and exit conditions.

Brief coverings and later uncovered clothing

Kyle says coolers were covered for one or two days after the July 18 City failure, Electronics for one or two days after the July 28 DSHS findings, and infant-girls clothing briefly before continued work/debris. The July 19 packet shows selected infant displays covered; July 20 views show particles on uncovered infant/toddler clothing. Exact placement/removal times and identity of every display remain unverified.

Additional submitted merchandise photographs

Video evidence

Local reading copies omit soundtracks to protect incidental voices. Dates retain their source basis.

Dangling electrical wiring and fixture, with daylight visible through roof openings during active roof construction, according to Moring.

Floor drain cover in the Dairy department shifting beside Moring’s foot.

Electronics ceiling and floor on September 6, 2025, documenting where the roof continued to leak, according to Moring.

July 19 · clothing displays, coverings and overhead ceiling · selected silent video

What the comparison establishes

The record contains visible particles on merchandise despite the protection/cleanup procedures described, and continued condition reports after the completion assurance. That is the strongest supported challenge to control effectiveness and adequate follow-up. The visible coverings also matter: the evidence supports uneven or insufficient protection at documented locations, rather than the claim that no controls ever existed. Appearance alone cannot identify particles as roofing material or asbestos, establish airborne exposure, show daily spotter attendance, or prove persistence at every location through September 22.

July cooler coverings and temperature observations

.

Further evidence and unresolved-record routes

·

Native Photos date checks

Selected tables are covered while adjacent hanging clothes remain uncovered. Advertising images are part of the display; no witness account or identity is included. This does not establish the exact removal time.

Particles are visible on the black and light-colored folded shirts. Kyle attributes them to roof work; particle composition and the exact same-table cover-removal sequence are not established by the photograph.

Particles are visible on the package exterior. Kyle attributes the material to roof work. The frame does not identify its composition or show contamination inside the sealed food package. The later DSHS negative finding for tortillas is retained.